Tentative ruling for November 13, 2019 on Defendant Ventura Unified School District's demurrer and motion to strike first amended complaint
The court sustains Defendant Ventura Unified School District's demurrer to the 6th cause of action in the first amended complaint (FAC) without leave to amend based upon plaintiffs' notice of non-opposition.
The court grants Defendant's motion to strike in part and denies the motion to strike in part. The uncontested portion of page 2:3-4 of the FAC shall be stricken.
Page 18:8-10 of the FAC shall be stricken with leave to amend should plaintiff want to identify an appropriate statutory basis for liability.
The remainder of the motion to strike is denied without prejudice to defendant's right to raise Education Code §44808 as a substantive defense later in the litigation. A motion to strike should be used cautiously and sparingly, and it should not be used as "a procedural 'line item veto' for the civil defendant." (PH II, Inc. v Superior Court (19
Hearing Date
November 13, 2019
Category
Civil - Unlimited
Type
Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Tentative ruling for November 13, 2019 on Defendant Ventura Unified School District's demurrer and motion to strike first amended complaint
The court sustains Defendant Ventura Unified School District's demurrer to the 6th cause of action in the first amended complaint (FAC) without leave to amend based upon plaintiffs' notice of non-opposition.
The court grants Defendant's motion to strike in part and denies the motion to strike in part. The uncontested portion of page 2:3-4 of the FAC shall be stricken.
Page 18:8-10 of the FAC shall be stricken with leave to amend should plaintiff want to identify an appropriate statutory basis for liability.
The remainder of the motion to strike is denied without prejudice to defendant's right to raise Education Code §44808 as a substantive defense later in the litigation. A motion to strike should be used cautiously and sparingly, and it should not be used as "a procedural 'line item veto' for the civil defendant." (PH II, Inc. v Superior Court (19